Q: Is it ethical to use gender-laden terms, like "sharp-tongued" or "outspoken" when your opponent is a woman?
A: Using a gender stereotype to undermine a woman's credibility may be politically expedient, but it is not ethical. This applies to racial and other stereotypes as well. The use of speech that reinforces unjust structures of oppression is unethical. If the behavior of a candidate is negative, a description of the behavior (he hurled a stack of papers at her when he shouted her down, or she raised her voice to disagree) allows voters to draw their own conclusions.
Q: Should Congress pass a law to require campaign consultants to wait a year before becoming lobbyists? Or do you think it's appropriate for lobbyists to also serve as campaign consultants?
A: I consulted a friend who has extensive experience as a campaign consultant on this question. We agreed there should be a law and a firewall between the two. Having a campaign consultant simultaneously involved in lobbying compromises the public well-being that candidates for office are entrusted to protect. For example, if a drug company is dumping toxins in a river and employs a lobbyist who also works for a candidate who would have responsibility for regulating pharmaceutical compliance with environmental protection laws, the consultant would either face a major conflict of interest or be faced with a difficult choice about which to support, the company or the candidate.
Q: If an elected official owns stock in a company, should they be required to recuse themselves from any votes that could impact that company or industry? Or is it enough that they have to disclose all ties to the company in financial disclosure forms?
A: I would suspect that the more scrupulously ethical officials are, the more likely they would be to recuse themselves to avoid even the semblance of conflicts of interest.
Financial disclosure forms do not do enough to protect the public from the consequences of someone who votes out of pecuniary personal interest. "Throw the bums out" later is not as effective as keeping people from acting like bums in the first place. We should require elected officials to recuse themselves.
Q: If one candidate is invited to speak to a religious group, do their opponents have the right of getting equal time?
A: First, legally, yes. However, this question raises several issues related to religious freedom, IRS laws and the ethics of truth telling. Taxexempt status allows public monetary support of faith institutions, which serve their communities. A religious group is free to invite a candidate to speak, but must welcome his or her opponent as well. Alternately, a candidate can appear as an individual, but must avoid mentioning their candidacy.
If a nonprofit wants to refuse to allow the opposition candidate to speak, it should consider whether the greater good of the group and the society would be served by its forfeiture of its tax-exempt status. If it wants to retain this status, it must obey the law. Organizations that willfully violate non-profit rules and then deny doing so act unethically.
At a deeper level, beyond the IRS question, lies the question of free information for discerning truthclaims and making decisions. Are truth and the greater political good served by an organization that offers its members a narrow partisan view as the basis of a voting decision?
Sometimes, truth is better served when the devil is allowed to speak in public.
[Author Affiliation]
Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock is co-author of the critically acclaimed Proverbs of Ashes. She also co-authored Casting Stones: Prostitution and Liberation in Asia and the United States, which won the 1996 Catholic Press Award for gender studies. She directed the Radcliffe Institute Fellowship Program at Harvard University from 1997 to 2001, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkeley, Calif.
No comments:
Post a Comment